Brown v. State, 5

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Citation: 378 A.2d 1104,281 Md. 241
• Docket Number: No. 5,5
• Parties: Jacqueline BROWN v. STATE of Maryland.
• Decision Date: 26 October 1977

Page 241

281 Md. 241 378 A.2d 1104 Jacqueline BROWN
v.
STATE of Maryland. No. 5. Court of Appeals of Maryland. Oct. 26, 1977.

[378 A.2d 1105] Martha Villmoare, Asst. Public Defender, Baltimore (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender and George E. Burns, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Gilbert H. Robinette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Clarence W. Sharp and Arrie W. Davis, Asst. Attys. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and ORTH, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

A jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore found appellant, Jacqueline Brown, guilty of murder in the second degree. She appealed, contending that her conviction should be reversed because it rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment in an unreported opinion, holding

Page 242

that there was legally sufficient evidence corroborative of the accomplice's testimony to support the conviction. We granted certiorari and requested the parties to consider, as an additional question, whether the long-standing rule of our cases that a person accused of crime may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice should be abandoned.

At common law, the testimony of an accomplice, although uncorroborated, was sufficient to warrant a conviction if it satisfied the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. See 7 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2056 et seq. (3d ed. 1940). The federal courts, and thirty of our sister states, adhere to this traditional common law view. ¹ Our

Page 243

predecessors in Luery [378 A.2d 1106] v. State, 116 Md. 284, 81 A. 681, decided in 1911, first formulated the rule in Maryland that a conviction may not rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The Court there said:

"It is true that at common law a verdict of the jury would not be set aside merely because founded on the evidence of an accomplice which was not corroborated, but by legislation in many states of this country and by the practice of most of the courts, where there is no such statute, such a verdict is regarded as an exceedingly dangerous one, and is not approved by the Courts. In those jurisdictions where it is not positively prohibited unless corroborated, the evidence of an accomplice is universally received with caution and weighed and scrutinized with great care. . . .

" . . . (T)he undoubted fact is that the experience of the Courts, which is certainly much greater than that of juries, is that it is unsafe, at least in the great majority of cases, to rest a conviction upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. Any one who has had experience at nisi prius trials knows how captivating is the story of one relating the circumstances connected with some mysterious crime. When such a one has as a motive the

Page 244

prospect of freedom, a milder sentence or the favor of the officers who have him in charge, an innocent [378 A.2d 1107] one may undoubtedly be made to suffer, if great caution is not used. Hence it would seem to be safer to require some corroboration . . . ." 116 Md. at 292-93, 81 A. at 684.

The Court stated the Maryland rule requiring corroboration even more forcefully in Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210, 117 A.2d 549 (1955):

"The reason for the rule requiring the testimony of an accomplice to be corroborated is that it is the testimony of a person admittedly contaminated with guilt, who admits his participation in the crime for which he particularly blames the defendant, and it should be regarded with great suspicion and caution, because otherwise the life or liberty of an innocent person might be taken away by a witness who makes the accusation either to gratify his malice or to shield himself from punishment, or in the hope of receiving clemency by turning State's evidence." (citation omitted) 208 Md. at 217, 117 A.2d at 552.

Not much in the way of evidence corroborative of the accomplice's testimony has been required by our cases. We have, however, consistently held the view that while the corroborative evidence need not be sufficient in itself to convict, it must relate to material facts tending either (1) to identify the accused with the perpetrators of the crime or (2) to show the participation of the accused in the crime itself. See Wright v. State, 219 Md. 643, 150 A.2d 733 (1959). If with some degree of cogency the corroborative evidence tends to establish either of these matters, the trier of fact may credit the accomplice's testimony even with respect to matters as to which no corroboration was adduced. McDowell v. State, 231 Md. 205, 189 A.2d 611 (1963). That corroboration need not extend to every detail and indeed may even be circumstantial is also settled by our cases. Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298, 131 A.2d 851 (1957); Brown v.

Page 245

State, 210 Md. 301, 123 A.2d 324 (1956). We have steadfastly adhered to these principles over the years since Luery was decided. See State v. Foster, 263 Md. 388, 283 A.2d 411 (1971); Strong v. State, 261 Md. 371, 275 A.2d 491 (1971); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 246 A.2d 608 (1968); Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 179 A.2d 338 (1962); Mulcahy v. State, 221 Md. 413, 158 A.2d 80 (1960); Early v. State, 13 Md.App. 182, 282 A.2d 154 (1971).

While only Maryland and Tennessee ² require corroboration as a matter of case law, seventeen other states, including New York and California, presently have statutes barring conviction of an accused person solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. ³ Those jurisdictions which follow the common law rule and do not require corroboration of an accomplice's testimony all reflect concern about the...